Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer

Credentials

Background

Roy W. Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.He operates his own blog on global warming where he describes himself as a “climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist.” [1]

Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance, formerly the Interfaith Steward Alliance (ISA), an evangelical Christian group that claims environmentalism is “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.” He has done work with other religious groups denying climate change including the Evangelical Climate Initiative. [2], [3], [4]

According to “Global Warming 101,” a section of Spencer's website, “the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years.” [5]

Stance on Climate Change

December 8, 2016

“Global warming is not something that we should be terribly worried about from a policy perspective, which is my view.” [80]

September, 2008

“There's probably a natural reason for global warming […] We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm […] The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less.” [6]

Key Quotes

December 8, 2016

“Global warming is not something that anybody will ever feel in their lifetime.” [80]

“I am one of the skeptics who believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, theoretically, should cause some warming. […] I would expect slow warming to continue in the future–but I wouldn’t bet money on it.” [80]

“Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat, why isn’t the agreement 100 percent? And since when is science settled by a survey or a poll? The hallmark of a good scientific theory is its ability to make good predictions.”

“We have no idea what's natural and what's man made. […] There is no fingerprint of human-caused warming.” [8]

2014

“All scientists should be skeptics. The reason why is that, even with the best of scientific measurements, we can come up with all kinds of explanations of what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect, and yet most of those explanations are wrong. It's really easy to be wrong in science … it's really hard to be right.” [9]

2011

“Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change.” [10]

May, 2007

“Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.” [11]

April, 2007

“We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves … I don't think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don't know for sure how it happens.” [12]

According to the IPA's media release, “Climate Change: The Facts 2017 contains 22 essays by internationally-renowned experts and commentators, including Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. The volume is edited by Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Fourteen of the contributors currently hold or have held positions at a university or a scientific research organisation.” [88]

“They errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites,” Abraham writes. [87]

He also points to a recent paper that had questioned Christy and Spencer's decision to use preliminary data in their congressional testimony while it was still in the peer review stage: [87]

“At present, the UAH v6 (most recent Christy/Spencer data) results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 (Spencer 2016). The release of the UAH version 6 products before publication is unusual, and Spencer recently stated that a manuscript has been submitted for a peer-reviewed publication. While some may find it scientifically inappropriate to utilize UAH v6b6 data before publication, these data have already been presented in testimony during congressional hearings before both the U.S. House and Senate and have also appeared on websites and in public print articles,” Abraham quotes the January 207 paper. [87]

Abraham adds, “let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people suggest).” [87]

“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter. [84]

DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever. [85]

“Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation. He is prepared to hear all sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA,” reads the letter.

In an open letter to the Office of Government Ethics, members of the Senate's environmental panel commented:

“During his tenure as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has blurred the distinction between official and political actions, often at the behest of corporations he will regulate if confirmed to lead EPA,” the letter said. “Public reporting based on documents produced by Freedom of Information Act requests illustrate how Mr. Pruitt and members of his staff have worked closely with fossil fuel lobbyists to craft his office's official positions.”

“Clearly, the deep layer atmosphere is not warming as much as the models say it should be.” [61:34]

“We don’t even trust those surface temperatures. Every time they get adjusted, they und up getting a warmer and warmer trend. […] They’re trying to force those surface temperatures to warm up to what the models are saying. They’re trying to make the measurements fit the theory.” [61:34]

“Global warming is not something that anybody will ever feel in their lifetime.” [66:18]

“I am one of the skeptics who believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, theoretically, should cause some warming. […] I would expect slow warming to continue in the future–but I wouldn’t bet money on it.” [66:39]

“They’re trying hard to make these data sets better match the models. In the matter of the next couple of years, ours will probably have the coldest temperature trend out of all of them, and we will be increasingly marginalized.” [67:12]

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The Hill. Domenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [79]

“Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. “

Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT:
The article is inaccurate in several places and conveys that one must choose between solving immediate problems, such as poverty, and long-term risks such as climate change. We can do both, and indeed must do both if we take poverty seriously, since climate change disproportionately affects the poor.

Jim Kossin, Research Scientist, NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate:
The author makes a number of statements that are not supported by the science or by established scientific process. He is basically playing by a different set of rules than the scientific community at large, which allows him to say anything he wants in order to make his case. A number of statements are misleading and some are obfuscating, particularly in terms of potential impacts of climate change on humans.

Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
This article by Roy Spencer is misleading when it comes to his own work on tropospheric temperature changes and several times severely wrong outside of his expertise. It does not give a fair overview of the state of the science.

Peter Gleick, President Emeritus and Chief Scientist, Pacific Institute:
Almost every claim in this article is scientifically inaccurate or misleading.

Alexis Berg, Associate Research Scholar, Princeton University:
This articles uses a number of misleading statements, logical flaws and unsubstantiated claims to try to defend the erroneous idea that climate change is nothing to worry about, that there is nothing to do about it anyway, and that wanting to address it is all a power play by politicians.

Roy Spencer and John Christy co-released a temperature record analysis, finding “August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record,” reports the press release. [13]

“While global average temperatures peaked higher this year than they did in 1998, temperatures fell faster this spring and summer to levels that are cooler than they were at this same time of year in 1998,” said Spencer. “We had three months this year that were warmer than their 1998 counterparts, and five that were cooler. There is really no reliable way of predicting what the next four months will do, compared to those same months in 1998.”

“I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming,” Spencer told the Post in March. “There has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been and how does that compare to what’s expected and what’s predicted.”

“It should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled,” Spencer writes in the report. “Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based.”

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.” [20]

Notable organizations also listed as creditors in the bankruptcy documents include:

“[U]nlike in the case of tobacco’s health risks, there are innumerable and enormous holes in the case (not for human contribution to global warming but) for manmade global warming dangerous enough to justify spending trillions of dollars reinventing the world’s energy system to mitigate it, particularly when competing use of those trillions might bring far greater benefit,” Beisner addresses the attorneys general. And you, intelligent and learned all, are ignorant of those enormous holes.” [21]

The Cornwall Alliance lists the following signatories to its open letter: [21]

CDR Communications was behind the 2010 video by the Cornwall Alliance titled Resisting the Green Dragon, which claimed environmentalism was a “false religion” and a “global government” power grab. Chris Rogers of CDR Communictions is also chairman of The James Partnership, the umbrella arm that includes the Cornwall Alliance as one of its projects and pays the salary of Calvin Beisner, Cornwall’s founder and spokesperson. [28]

“We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano had said before the film was released. [31]

“The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.” [31]

In an interview with Ezra Levant, Morano said:

“I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.” [31]

p.18“Peabody asserted that significant climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, it is not due to anthropogenic causes. Furthermore, Peabody insisted that any current warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial. Based on its position on climate change, Peabody maintained that the externality value of CO2 would most accurately be set at or below zero.…”

p.31 “The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.”

“All of this [opposition] testimony is flawed to the extent it simply relies on … predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change […] today the best evidence indicates that … a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1°C or 1.5°C is correct […]” [36]

“Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science,” The Guardian reports. “For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events.” [37]

“Since poverty is the leading cause of premature death in the world, and fossil fuels have enabled the world to prosper and live longer, more comfortable lives, being against fossil fuels is, in my opinion, either misguided or evil,” Spencer writes. [39]

“Over the years, I’ve charged to give talks out-of-state, taking vacation time away from my research day job (which is 100% federal and state funded) to avoid any charges of “double-dipping”. A few of those talks have been for fossil fuel-related organizations, a few have been for environmental organizations, but most have not.

“My affiliations with the Marshall Institute and Cornwall Alliance have been on a volunteer basis. I’ve also been paid a modest amount to write a couple of reports over the years, as well as to help in a recent legal case. The total compensation I’ve received is very small compared to my day job, and it’s even very small compared to the ad revenue I receive from our little weather website, Weatherstreet.com.

“Many years ago I was paid to write articles for a website called TCSDaily.com, which turned out to be fossil-fuel funded. I didn’t know that at the time, but I don’t think it would have mattered. After all, like most of us in the modern world, I’ve given far more money to fossil fuel interests than I’ve ever received from them.

“I’m still waiting for that Big Check from Big Oil. After all, I’ve been carrying their water for years. In my case, my support of fossil fuels (and the prosperity and longevity they have enabled humanity to achieve) goes back decades. It’s a no-brainer. If there is another energy technology as cheap and reliable and large-scale, I’m all for it.” [39]

Confronted by a Greenpeace activist Connor Gibson on camera, Dr. Spencer was filmed repeating several disinformation myths. Spencer denied that the global average temperature record has a documented warming trend over the last century, and then denied that humans have caused the warming trend he refused to acknowledge.

Spencer argued that government-run climate change models are inaccurately “biased high” and should therefore not be used to determine the social cost of carbon.

“My testimony will address the validity of climate model projections of global and regional temperatures used in the determination of the social cost of carbon (SCC). Three independent classes of temperature observations show that the climate models used by governments for policy guidance have warmed 2 to 3 times faster than the real climate system over the last 35 to 55 years, which is the period of greatest greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Recent research suggests that the climate models are too sensitive to these emissions, and that increasing greenhouse gases do not cause as much warming and associated climate change as is commonly believed [emphasis added]. These results suggest that any SCC estimates based upon such models will be biased high.” [43]

Spencer went on to testify that he ascribes to the heavily debunked “no global warming in 18 years” hiatus theory, which he believes is due to “some combination of low climate sensitivity and a natural cooling effect, such as stronger La Nina event in recent years.” [43]

Roy Spencer is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change. [44]

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?” [44]

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [44]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

July 2013

Dr Spencer gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works session on climate change. During the hearing (at 3hr 20s), Dr Spencer was asked by Democrat committee member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “Do you believe that the theory of creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution.” [50]

The question was apparently in reference to an article which Spencer had written several years earlier in which he stated the “theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution.” [51]

Spencer answered that he believed that “evolutionary theory is mostly religion” and that the DNA molecule could not have happened “by chance”. He also claimed that if he was placed in a debate, he would be able to offer more scientific evidence “supporting that life was created” than an opponent could offer that life had evolved. [50]

July, 2011

In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, “[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science,” RealClimate found. [52]

His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it “blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism.” [53]

In Andrew Dessler's view, “[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.” [54]

In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say: (PDF)[55]

“After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements…” [55]

Confusion is described as “forsaking blindingly technical statistics” about global warming to describe the issue in “simple terms.” [59]

March 8, 2007

Roy Spencer appeared on the The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the “Great Science Funding Conspiracy.” Spencer claims that “climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” [60]

Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed “the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed.” [60]

ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.[61]

RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor – because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor – in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.

DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like – and there are a few of us that are like this – that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.

RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?

DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect… .

There's a big problem with [the accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect], though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.

RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't. [62]

The letter states that “it is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages.” [63]

July, 2006

Spencer is listed as a “scientific advisor” for an organization called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA), now the Cornwall Alliance. According to their website, the ISA is “a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.” [3], [64]

Roy Spencer was one of the 60 “accredited experts” to sign a 2006 open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying man-made climate change while urging the government avoid implementing climate policy. [65]

The letter states that “climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'” [65]

August, 2005

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [66]

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University. [66]

November 16, 2004

Spencer signed a 2004 open letter to John McCain refuting the findings by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). [67]

“Certainly global warming is a good area for submitting proposals to get government funding to do government-funded research. And I agree that the threat of global warming is sufficient to where we should have that funded activity, Spencer said. […] Now this isn't meant to be an indictment of the scientific process. I just want to point out that scientists are people too. And while the most objective people I've ever met are scientists, for the most part, people that speak out on the issue of global warming have greater motivations than just searching for how things work.” [86]

Outlining where he stands on global warming, Spencer said that he would expect the trend to be revised downward: [86]

“I could probably be convinced that maybe - yeah, we’ll just see direct radiative effect of CO2 which maybe, might give you, one - one and a half degree C by the end of the next century. But, I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in that. But I have even less confidence in positive feedbacks in the climate models. And I think as the new reports come out, say in the year 2000, that these estimates of global warming will be further revised downward.” [86]

David Klepper. “Expert: We must act fast on warming” (PDF), The Wichita Eagle (Kansas), September 24, 2008. Printed by the uptown neighbourhood association. Archived November 1, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE